1

I have been having a very hard time with the English language (my first language), and no this isn't an English question as it is founded upon a philosophical concept that I doubt there are corresponding terminologies for that are readily available to people in any language discussion. If I categorize everything around me as being real, what would I call something that isn't real? I can't say not real or nothing as I am not referencing nothing. Nothing is void, null, not, but not-something or rather un-something is what it is. So unreal? But unreal also includes nothing, which I am not referencing. Something unreal could be a cartoon that never existed, never been thought of, but has the potential to exist, or never will, it isn't nothing and not real. So now I have these three things: real, nothing, unreal. Real is part of a reality, nothing is null, so unreal is part of an unreality? Unreality being a place that contains everything that isn't? Or un-is? But then comes the most frustrating part: how do I say reality, nothing, and unreality, at the same time? I could say everything, but that doesn't include nothing and un-everything. There seems to be no super inclusive terminology?

  • 1
    Parmenides said what is not, is not. So even non-being is not nothing. Your conceptual difficulties about this has a long history. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 17 '18 at 19:36
  • Something that is "unreal" can become real should the state of not being be defined without foreshadowing. So a new technology non-existent is certainly not nothing, its not real though, but it could become real, in its current state it is neither nothing nor something. I wonder if there is a conclusion to this chain of thought? At least terminology created by it... (Kinda what I am hoping to find) – Terran Jan 18 '18 at 2:14
  • Could there be a single term that means 'reality, nothing, and unreality, at the same time' ? Invent a term, 'zink'. When I say X is zink I mean, then, that X is real, nothing, and unreal : what possible state of affairs could this describe ? Would a dichotomy serve you better ? Existent/ non-existent ? If X is real, it exists (is existent). If X is nothing then it is non-existent. If X is unreal it is also non-existent. I have no confidence that this will satisfy you but I also have no confidence that the multi-purpose term you are looking for (pardon the word !) exists. Intriguing question. – Geoffrey Thomas Jan 18 '18 at 18:16
  • Well, until I have a reason to do otherwise, I guess I would have to invent one for now, following your advice, bringing an "unreal" word into reality, lol. Well, decided I would use a latin base, messed around a bit, and came up with this mouthful term: interactnulfigment. Or just actnulfigment. Which is the combination of words in the phrase: "inter figmentum, actualitas, et nullitatis" meaning between fiction, reality, and nullity... I don't speak latin so I don't know how correct that phrase is... But interactnulfigment is the closest I got so far XD – Terran Jan 18 '18 at 19:28
  • Other possible candidates?: Inter-Fictonullreality, Fictonullreal, Inter-Fictionullreality, Fictionullreality (sounds like fictional reality). I don't know how I feel about using something no one would understand... – Terran Jan 18 '18 at 19:38

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.